Senior members of the Church of England were divided yesterday over whether the 1701 Act of Settlement should be repealed to allow the monarch or heir to the throne to marry a Roman Catholic, reflecting fears for the implications of the move on the church's standing and its implications for society generally.

Fissures run deep within the church - an indication of the continuing symbolism and significance of a 299-year-old statute. All those contacted by the Guardian, however, had avidly read our coverage.

At Lambeth Palace, the Archbishop of Canterbury's press secretary asked incredulously: "You want a response from here? We think the simple answer is that very often seemingly straightforward proposals are often nothing of the sort.

"We are very aware of the human rights issue but that is by no means the only factor. It is difficult to grasp the whole thing. The process the Guardian is undertaking to raise the issue is obviously at its earliest stage and we will be watching closely to see whether it comes to anything. Palpably, there can't be a debate unless there is progress in bringing a case.

"You cannot presume that the archbishop would not oppose the prince marrying a Catholic. He would seek to follow the law of the land and he would uphold the constitutional settlement."

Dr David Hope, the Archbishop of York and a leading member of the Anglo-Catholic wing of the church, is on record as calling for change.

His spokesman, the Rev. Rob Marshall, said his views had not changed since he told a journalist at the end of last year: "It is a very negative kind of arrangement at the moment. I cannot really see why members of the royal family should not be free to marry whom they will.

"We are living in a different age and a different climate and the arrangements should reflect that. Some movement or accommodation is necessary, bearing in mind the warm relationships between Roman Catholics and other churches in this country."

The Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, bishop of Winchester, who speaks on constitutional matters for the church was cautious about any attempt to dismantle the legislation.

He said: "A monarchy stripped of its religious significance would not be of long standing. A state whose reference point was purely secular would be quickly markedly less tolerant not only to the broad range of religions but to secular organisations as well.

"I find it very frustrating that these things are bandied about as if thinking about issues which have been developed over 1,000 years is quite simple and straightforward. The Guardian should be thinking about the implications more."

Canon Paul Oestreicher, of Coventry cathedral, said: "The Act of Settlement is a joke and of course it ought to be repealed. It is a trivial anachronism and totally inappropriate both for a modern state and for the church. Why should the prime minister appoint bishops, or bishops sit in the Lords by virtue of their appointment?

"We have the situation where the heir to the throne can be an adulterer but not marry a Catholic. He can go against the most basic moral principles of the church and still be its supreme governor."

The Rev David Haslam, chairman of the Christian Socialist Movement, said: "We believe it is quite improper and wrong to discriminate against different Christian denominations and that aspect of the Act of Settlement should be set aside forthwith."

Members of other faiths welcomed the Guardian's move to challenge the Act of Settlement.

Padmesh Gupta, the president of the United Kingdom Hindi committee, said: "This kind of discrimination is not right at this time when people all over the world should think first of their humanity rather than their religion."

Yousuf Bhailok, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "Prince Charles has been a good friend of the Muslim community and we share his views that he wanted the monarchy, in a multi-cultural society, to be the defender of all faiths."

Anthony Haviland-Nye, director of the British Buddhist Association, said: "In this day and age, everyone, whether they be at the bottom or the top, should have freedom in matters of conscience. The act is clearly incompatible with the human rights convention."

The Board of Deputies of British Jews, and a number of prominent Jewish commentators, did not wish to be drawn into the debate.